Mind Flayer is. Its actually a very short list as to what is "protected". Like less than a dozen monsters. I haven't read it in a couple of years, but pretty sure none of the others are on the "protected" list.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Captain_K wrote:Thanks team! Got it, formatted it. Seems like something that should be more formally posted in the Monsters area (not that anyone goes there much anymore). Also on the KofC area in the right location?

Thanks again... ideas are forming for Monty's next Domesday "Lost Bestiary of Atlantis" here they come... Su-Monster for sure, and a few others.

Hmmm, that would be a good idea for resubmitting the various mummies that didn't make the cut last issue, and the "mega fauna" ideas I mentioned months ago . I have notes on some, but they got pushed back off even the back burner - work going sideways etc -

I may have to do some digging and get to work on the bare bones work I have for prehistoric mammal/monsters. Truly fitting with Atlantis being Prehistoric myth ...

"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Lurker, They made the cut, just not the dead line for inclusion or possibly the Editor misplaced them until too late.. that said, they are already with Morty I think, but it would never hurt for you to peak at them and resubmit to Morty... sorry about that if the mishap was my fault.

I've been digging in the actual Bestiaries of history for many of the creature I have added to the Domesday. Since they came from Bestiaries but no one has used them before (to the best of my knowledge.. like the Yale, etc.) I use the title of the Lost Bestiary of Atlantis as if no one had the book... not a game or write up on the Atlantean.. but that's cool too!

Wow, Another Natural One! You guys are a sink hole for luck. Stay away from my dice.

It's not so much a factor of what is "protected" (that is, what has expressly been declared product identity) as it is what has and has not been released as open game content. The problem with the list that was posted is that it refers to monsters from the base monster manuals, and not setting-specific ones. The Su-Monster, for example, hasn't to my knowledge been released as open content in any product, which means you can't use it. Someone can point me to the product where it was delcared open content if I'm incorrect.

Your best bet to find that out is to simply check the online SRD documents (d20srd.com or 5esrd.com are among the best) and search for the monsters. If they don't show up, they're probably not available, and for legal reasons if there's any question at all, it's best to assume it's not open.

Also, it's come to my attention that a lot of people don't realize there is, in fact, an official psionics system for the SIEGE Engine. It's in Amazing Adventures, which is 100% compatible with C&C and also includes eight other new character classes, including a more sorcerer-inspired magic user (the point-based Arcanist) that makes use of one of the optional point-based magic systems from the CKG, a tomb-raiding Raider class, a different take on the unarmed fighter (the pugilist), a Socialite who would be ideal for modeling your noble or fast-talking "face" character, and more. About the only pure crossover is the Hooligan, which is essentially the Rogue. The other classes are all unique, however.

There's also new options for customizing classes like generic class abilities you can swap out with existing class abilities to change up your hero, traits which give you situational bonuses and penalties based on your build, personality or outlook, backgrounds and knowledges to give you bonuses to SIEGE checks based on where you grew up or what you know, a Fate point system (similar to that found in the CKG) and more.

AA isn't just a 1940s pulp game--it's a broad expansion of the SIEGE Engine and can bring a LOT to your C&C games, especially if you check out the Amazing Adventures Companion, which gives you classes like the Archer, Duelist, the Pirate, the Soldier, the Acrobat, the Feral, and specific rules for adapting these classes to C&C (really, all that's needed is assigning archaic arms & armor proficiencies).

If you haven't checked out AA because you only play fantasy, you should think about taking a look!

I can agree with that. If anyone is running C&C and is wanting something more, looking to AA for alternate or additional ideas is a great way to go. I've been doing this more for Victorious than I have C&C, mostly the powers booklet.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

1) Must assume everything that is not ancient (dragons, elves, Minotaur, etc.) is not fair game without a total change. How did they write the M&T and Classic Monster without some sort of faster method.. that's a real drag/handycap.
2) AA also has the mentalist a class that plays Psionics directly think back to the old Dragon magazine mentalist.
3) If Tree likes the system it must be good.
4) Will these classes be in the Adventurers Backpack book to come out? Seems like three PH are on hand?

Wow, Another Natural One! You guys are a sink hole for luck. Stay away from my dice.

Captain_K wrote:1) Must assume everything that is not ancient (dragons, elves, Minotaur, etc.) is not fair game without a total change. How did they write the M&T and Classic Monster without some sort of faster method.. that's a real drag/handycap.

The OGL makes it so easy.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

The OGL allows nearly any monster TSR/WOTC has ever done to be used "as is". IE copy/paste it straight from their SRD. Since the SIEGE engine is an entirely different mechanic, that obviously needs no OGL compliance. The only part of the OGL that helps is the ability to use the name of the creature as written by WOTC, and the fluff/history written by WOTC. When they completely rename and/or rewrite monsters, then that is actually not OGL. That becomes wholly the property of TLG.

As for artwork, copyright only protects the works of a specific artists. IE you cannot do any exact duplicate, and its best to not even do a close similarity. However, you can do your own original drawing or sculpture of a creature that looks like a Mind Flayer. After all, if copyright worked the way most people seem to think and act like it does, we would only have one artist able to draw any and all Barbarians, or only one artist who can draw or sculpt any or all bears. Actually, any artist can draw anything, as long as they do it in their own original way. Take any cover of any C&C book. Any artist can draw their own version of any of those covers, as long as it doesn't look like Bradley is the one who drew it. It only becomes copyright infringement if you try to make it look like Bradley drew it, or even more blatantly, scanned it and re colored it to look different, but the drawing is still Bradley's. As long as they draw it with their own lines, their own style, and add in differences, such as a different positioning of the figures, or a different style of architecture, its not copyright infringement, because you are no longer copying the actual work of someone else, you are creating your own original version of a concept.

Same goes for any written work. If your going to copy the name and written word for a monster in an RPG, you may as well as use the OGL to legally do it. If your going to create a "Brain Eater" that looks like a humanoid octopus, write original abilities and history, even still have it like to eat brains and have psionics, and call it anything but a Mind Flayer, and you can. That because it is now your Brain Eater, not WOTC's Mind Flayer. You can create as many variations of a Mind Flayer as you can imagine, you simply cannot replicate the Mind Flayer, its abilities, and its history, as developed by TSR/WOTC. That is their work. Your original concept is yours.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Treebore wrote:The OGL allows nearly any monster TSR/WOTC has ever done to be used "as is". IE copy/paste it straight from their SRD.

THIS is key. If it's not in the SRD, it's likely not available. It's not about what has been expressly protected; it's about what has and has not been expressly allowed.

Since the SIEGE engine is an entirely different mechanic, that obviously needs no OGL compliance. The only part of the OGL that helps is the ability to use the name of the creature as written by WOTC, and the fluff/history written by WOTC. When they completely rename and/or rewrite monsters, then that is actually not OGL. That becomes wholly the property of TLG.

Except where open content is used within the stat blocks, wherein that content remains open.

As for artwork, copyright only protects the works of a specific artists. IE you cannot do any exact duplicate, and its best to not even do a close similarity. However, you can do your own original drawing or sculpture of a creature that looks like a Mind Flayer. After all, if copyright worked the way most people seem to think and act like it does, we would only have one artist able to draw any and all Barbarians, or only one artist who can draw or sculpt any or all bears. Actually, any artist can draw anything, as long as they do it in their own original way. Take any cover of any C&C book. Any artist can draw their own version of any of those covers, as long as it doesn't look like Bradley is the one who drew it. It only becomes copyright infringement if you try to make it look like Bradley drew it, or even more blatantly, scanned it and re colored it to look different, but the drawing is still Bradley's. As long as they draw it with their own lines, their own style, and add in differences, such as a different positioning of the figures, or a different style of architecture, its not copyright infringement, because you are no longer copying the actual work of someone else, you are creating your own original version of a concept.

That gets tricky. Technically doing artwork of copyrighted properties and selling it is illegal. Artists get away with it because it's not actively enforced, but for example, if Peter painted a picture of Spider-Man and put it into a book, Marvel could come after us for it, even if it's an original pose.

Same goes for any written work. If your going to copy the name and written word for a monster in an RPG, you may as well as use the OGL to legally do it. If your going to create a "Brain Eater" that looks like a humanoid octopus, write original abilities and history, even still have it like to eat brains and have psionics, and call it anything but a Mind Flayer, and you can. That because it is now your Brain Eater, not WOTC's Mind Flayer. You can create as many variations of a Mind Flayer as you can imagine, you simply cannot replicate the Mind Flayer, its abilities, and its history, as developed by TSR/WOTC. That is their work. Your original concept is yours.

Exactly, but again it's best to mix up a couple specific and major qulaities of your creature, just to divorce it as much as possible. Not because you can't legally reproduce an idea, but because your legal right to do it doesn't stop WotC from issuing Cease & Desist letters, and you don't have the money (nor does TLG) to fight that battle in court.

Go0gleplex wrote:Reading all that... have tentacle fingers rather than squid face and have it eat through its hands. The head just has no features other than glowy eyes...then it can eat twice the brains. :p

Yep.

As for the spider man thing, thats stealing a very well known identity concept. You cannot draw anything identifiable as everyones favorite web slinger without licensing. Just like you cannot draw Barbarians identifiable as "Conan", or bears identifiable as Booboo, or Yogi, or Smokey without licensing. UNLESS your doing it for some kind of satirical spoof. Which has its own host of legal specifics.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Go0gleplex wrote:Reading all that... have tentacle fingers rather than squid face and have it eat through its hands. The head just has no features other than glowy eyes...then it can eat twice the brains. :p

Yep.

As for the spider man thing, thats stealing a very well known identity concept. You cannot draw anything identifiable as everyones favorite web slinger without licensing. Just like you cannot draw Barbarians identifiable as "Conan", or bears identifiable as Booboo, or Yogi, or Smokey without licensing. UNLESS your doing it for some kind of satirical spoof. Which has its own host of legal specifics.

Correct, and yet artists get away with it ALL THE TIME (just see the Artists' Alley at any convention to see examples). Artwork rights, what they can do and can't legally vs. what they can get away with, is insanely complex. Always best to just avoid that mess entirely in publishing .

Go0gleplex wrote:Reading all that... have tentacle fingers rather than squid face and have it eat through its hands. The head just has no features other than glowy eyes...then it can eat twice the brains. :p

Yep.

As for the spider man thing, thats stealing a very well known identity concept. You cannot draw anything identifiable as everyones favorite web slinger without licensing. Just like you cannot draw Barbarians identifiable as "Conan", or bears identifiable as Booboo, or Yogi, or Smokey without licensing. UNLESS your doing it for some kind of satirical spoof. Which has its own host of legal specifics.

Correct, and yet artists get away with it ALL THE TIME (just see the Artists' Alley at any convention to see examples). Artwork rights, what they can do and can't legally vs. what they can get away with, is insanely complex. Always best to just avoid that mess entirely in publishing .

Yeah, I have often wondered about that. Best answer I have gotten is that for a successful Cease and Desist, you need to prove what they are doing is hurting your OWN sales of your OWN work. So unless they are selling YOUR work as their own, its hard to prove they are actually hurting the sales of your works with their own. Still, then you have Trademarks. Which is what Spiderman, Conan, and the like have. So just on that alone, no one should be able to sell even a likeness of such, without getting legally nailed for it. I am not nearly as experienced with Trademark as I am copyright, so I can only guess there is a similar burden of proof for Trademarks.

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Su-Monster is now a Fu-Beast... a prehensile tailed scorpion. I think you will like what Jason and I have created. The Psychic Panther is next with its Ego Whip and Id Insinuation.. guess what that cat once was??

Wow, Another Natural One! You guys are a sink hole for luck. Stay away from my dice.

Captain_K wrote:Su-Monster is now a Fu-Beast... a prehensile tailed scorpion. I think you will like what Jason and I have created. The Psychic Panther is next with its Ego Whip and Id Insinuation.. guess what that cat once was??

There you go! Individual creativity!

Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

The stats and description of both Githyanki and Githzerai are product identity. The names Githyanki and Githzerai are copyrighted as they appear in a George R. R. novel. So the names cannot be used at all.

Regardless of the name you can create your own version of a given creature so long as it is fundamentally different from the D&D version.

Not really in for contributing anything - either substantively or in terms of argumentative points - but I do have to state that it really ticks me off that an AD&D monster - or monsters, really - have been shut from access because of an IP issue that might not be worth the paper and ink it takes to print the issues and discovery elements of the case out.

That stated, just wondering: Did George Martin actually originate the Githyanki/Githzerai names back in the (!)early '80s(!) when the Fiend Folio first came out?!? If so, I'm more damn surprised that the person who created both monsters (and the slaad and death knights, if I remember the attributions at the back of the book correctly) was able to get away with this name-swipe for damn near forty years. Or, on the other hand, did Martin rip the names off (I honestly can't feature why the man would do such a thing) from the Fiend Folio and he's claiming ownership under some balderdash that, because his books are more popularly recognized or somesuch, he has effective control of the concept?

The above are pure suppositions basically constructed out of whole cloth, but just wondering who in the hell was the individual responsible for a) creating the names, and b) creating the actual monsters? That stated, if we've got to change the name/s to Grathyanki/Grathzeri or something like that in order to work them into the official C&C monster encyclopedia, let's do it. The creatures as presented in the original Fiend Folio are simply too potent to let them sit in obscurity - it being the case that I have no idea what or how Wizards of the Coast has or is utilizing them for past editions or fifth.

The Githzerai were introduced by Charles Stross in the first edition Fiend Folio (1981). Stross borrowed the names Githzerai and Githyanki from two fictional species created by George R. R. Martin in his 1977 science fiction novel Dying of the Light.

dachda, thank you very much for providing that very illuminating information. I have no idea how old Mr. Stross may have been with the Githyanki/Githzerai's first submission/publication, but my reaction is one that applies regardless of the man's age: Rookie mistake, bud. What in the living hell would have led the man - all his excellent Fiend Folio monster submissions aside - to think that Martin et al would not have picked up on this act of plagiarism? Yeah, it's just a pair of names - nonetheless, I would submit the argument that Troll Lord Games would be best advised to come up with an alteration of this nomenclature - not sure as to how radical it'd have to be to pass muster - if and when the (nee) Githyanki/Githzerai were to be included in the (currently) hypothetical C&C monster collection they show up in, be that Monsters & Treasure fifth printing or otherwise.

It's possible that Mr. Martin just looked the other way when it came up. IANAL nor do I know him but I have read that he is an RPG fan, he certainly played D&D from back then and maybe he just chuckled and moved on. (There some great stories about Zelazny playing with the Santa Fe group, various table top games, they really want to get him to play Amber Diceless with them, which if you think about it is pure awesome).

Perhaps; nonetheless, again, I'd have to submit that the least Mr. Stross could have done in Fiend Folio was alter the names enough to avoid direct copying - either that, or provide clear indication as to where the names originated. I've been on the receiving end of this myself: in WotC's Star Wars: Ultimate Adversaries, my online name was used to...inspire, I guess I'd generously state...the name of a particular bad guy character in the book. Was the name changed? Yeah - they switched around a couple of letters in the character's surname and apparently called it good enough. Am I ticked off? I'm prepared to live with it, but if I ever publish a story about the guy - and I do have several in mind - I would anticipate that there are going to be some serious questions about "Did you rip your protagonist's name off from Ultimate Adversaries?" "No, it's kind of the other way around."

One of the big differences, I suppose, is that the name I used was actually submitted and approved on a WotC site, and they could probably stage an argument that such an action makes it their property by default and allows them use it as a resource; besides, they did change it, even if it was only by a couple of letters, and therefore doesn't qualify as "my" intellectual property anymore, if it ever was.

Mr. Stross, unfortunately, didn't even go that far with the Githyank/Githzerai. Again, whether or not Mr. Martin does decide to let the matter go by, I would contend that Troll Lord Games change the names - again, even if only by a couple of letters - to avoid stepping into another man's house (pardon the metaphor) without prior permission.